A vision for Open Archaeology

Abstract By unblocking knowledge bottle-necks and enhancing collaborative and creative input ‘open’ approaches have the potential to revolutionize science, humanities and arts. ‘Open’ has captured the Zeitgeist, but what is it all about? Is it about providing clear and transparent access to knowledge objects: data, theories and knowledge (open access, open data, open methods, open knowledge)? Is it about providing similar access to knowledge acquisition processes (open science)? Obviously it is; however, this is not the whole story. Open approaches require active engagement. This is not just engagement from the ‘usual suspects’ but engagement from a broader societal base. For example, primary data creators need the appropriate incentives to provide access to Open Data – these incentives will vary between different groups: contract archaeologists, curatorial archaeologists and research archaeologists all have different drivers. Equally important is that open approaches raise a number of issues about data access and downstream data reuse. This paper will discuss these issues in relation to the current situation in the UK and in the context of the DART project: an Open Science research project.

[1]  Thomas Vogt,et al.  Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science , 2012 .

[2]  William Snyder,et al.  Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge , 2002 .

[3]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  From Conservation to Crowdsourcing: A Typology of Citizen Science , 2011, 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[4]  Adrien Treuille,et al.  Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game , 2010, Nature.

[5]  Thomas Llewelyn Webb,et al.  What Factors Predict Scientists' Intentions to Participate in Public Engagement of Science Activities? , 2007 .

[6]  Richard Bradley,et al.  Bridging the Two Cultures – Commercial Archaeology and the Study of Prehistoric Britain , 2006, The Antiquaries Journal.

[7]  Li Daguan,et al.  Survey of Factors Affecting Science Communication by Scientists and Engineers , 2007 .

[8]  Leif Isaksen Pandora’s box: the future of cultural heritage on the world wide web , 2009 .

[9]  E. Lattman In Silico , 2003, Proteins.

[10]  R. Wilkie The National Planning Policy Framework , 2012 .

[11]  E. Hand,et al.  Citizen science: People power , 2010, Nature.

[12]  R. Parker,et al.  Communities and Local Government , 2008 .

[13]  Opening up Government , 1978, Nature.

[14]  Matt Ford Archaeology: Hidden treasure , 2010, Nature.

[15]  Steven Johnson,et al.  Where good ideas come from : the seven patterns of innovation , 2010 .

[16]  D. Cowley,et al.  Interpreting archaeological topography : airborne laser scanning, 3D data and ground observation , 2013 .